:: wikimiki.org ::

Political Parties

Political parties

A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns. Some parties are not permitted to or choose not to seek power through elections and so may turn to other forms of pressure, sometimes terrorism. Parties often espouse a certain ideology, but may also represent a coalition among disparate interests. In parliamentary systems of government, most political parties have an elected leader who, if his or her party is elected, becomes head of government. In presidential systems, especially those with full separation of powers, there may not be a formal leader. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government. Partisanship is the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at least support their party's views and policies in contrast to those of other parties. Differentiation is essential to most political parties: they must be different at least in some ways to other parties to compete in politics and win elections. Extreme partisanship is sometimes referred to as partisan warfare.

Nonpartisan, Single-party, two-party, and multi-party governments

In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, or the law does not permit political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate for office runs on her or his own merits rather than as a member of a political party. In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature; even if there are caucuses for specific issues. Despite being nonpartisan, most members have consistent and identifiable voting patterns. Historians have frequently interpreted Federalist No. 10 to imply that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended the government to be nonpartisan. The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the US Congress were nonpartisan. The unicameral legislature of Nebraska is the only nonpartisan state government body in the United States. Many city and county governments are nonpartisan. Unless there are legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within nonpartisan governments generally evolve into political parties. In single-party systems, only one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be, however, identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government. In Dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore and the African National Congress in South Africa. Also, one party dominant systems existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990's, and in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the 1880s until the 1970s. Two-party systems are states such as the United States and Jamaica in which there are two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is extremely difficult. One right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but in two-party states political parties are traditionally catch all parties which are ideologically broad and inclusive. The relationship between the voting system used and the two-party system was described by Maurice Duverger and is known as Duverger's Law. Duverger's Law Multi-party systems are systems in which there are multiple parties. In nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom, there may be two strong parties, with a third party that is electorally successful. The party may frequently come in second place in elections and pose a threat to the other two parties, but has still never formally held government. In some rare cases, such as in Finland, the nation may have an active three-party system, in which all three parties routinely hold top office. It is very rare for a country to have more than three parties who are all equally successful, and all have an equal chance of independently forming government. More commonly, in cases where there are numerous parties, no one party often has a chance of gaining power, and parties must work with each other to form coalition governments. This has been an emerging trend in the politics of the Republic of Ireland.

Parties and directions

Political parties are often considered on a political spectrum. One typical spectrum has the Left associated with radical or progressive policies and the Right with conservative or traditional policies. Other analyses include other dimensions such as the political parties' acceptance of parliamentary democracy as opposed to authoritarian or totalitarian attitudes, and economic policies, the Left favoring social-democracy, socialism or communism, while the Right tends to favor laissez-faire economics or Fascism. Centrist parties often adopt a collection of policies that defy easy placing on the political spectrum. Many parties will have (formal or informal) factions within them that have differing views on policy direction.

Colors and emblems for parties

:Main article: see political colour Generally speaking, over the world, political parties associate themselves with colors, primarily for identification, especially for voter recognition during elections. Red usually signifies leftist, communist or socialist parties. Conservative and Christian democratic parties generally use blue or black. Recently in the United States, this trend has been reversed. Pink sometimes signifies socialist. Yellow is often used for liberalism. Green is the color for green parties and Islamist parties. Orange is sometimes a color of nationalism, such as in The Netherlands, or is a color of reform such as in Ukraine. In the past, Purple was considered the color of royalty, but is rarely used in modern-day political parties. Brown is generally associated with fascist or neofascist parties, going back to the Nazi Party's brownshirt security guards. Color associations are useful for mnemonics when voter illiteracy is significant. Another case where they are used is when it is not desirable to make rigorous links to parties, particularly when coalitions and alliances are formed between political parties and other organizations, for example: Red Tory, "Purple" (Red-Blue) alliances, Red-Green Alliances, Blue-Green Alliances, Pan-green coalitions, and Pan-blue coalitions. The emblem of socialist parties is often a red rose held in a fist. Communist parties often use a hammer, a sickle, or both.

International organizations of political parties

During the 19th and 20th century, many national political parties organized themselves into international organizations along similar policy lines. Notable examples are the International Workingmen's Association (also called the First International), the Socialist International (also called the Second International), the Communist International, (also called the Third International), and the Fourth International, as organizations of Working class parties, or the Liberal International (yellow), and the International Democrat Union (blue). Worldwide green parties have recently established the Global Greens. The Socialist International, the Liberal International, and the International Democrat Union are all based in London.

External links

- [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php U.S. Party Platforms from 1840-2004 at The American Presidency Project: UC Santa Barbara]
- [http://www.electionworld.org/parties.htm Political parties around the world]
- [http://www.politicalresources.net/ Political resources on the net]
- [http://www.broadleft.org/ Leftist political parties of the world] Category:Elections Category:Political parties ko:정당 ja:政党 simple:Political party

Politics

Politics is the process by which decisions are made for a given society. The method of making decisions for groups varies, but the act of decision making is the key component that characterises politics. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. Political science is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power, i.e. the ability to impose one's will on another. One theorist, Harold Lasswell, has defined politics as "who gets what, when, and how." Another definition of 'politics' is: "how power is distributed within a group or system".

A natural state

In 1651, Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, in which he proposed a model of early human development to justify the creation of human associations. Hobbes described an ideal state of nature wherein every person had equal right to every resource in nature and was free to use any means to acquire those resources. He noted that such an arrangement created a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). Further, he noted that men would enter into a social contract and would give up absolute rights for certain protections. While it appears that social cooperation and dominance hierarchies predate human societies, Hobbes’s model illustrates a rationale for the creation of societies (polities).

Early history

V.G. Childe describes the transformation of human society that took place around 6000 BCE as an urban revolution. Among the features of this new type of civilization were the institutionalization of social stratification, non-agricultural specialised crafts (including priests and lawyers), taxation, and writing. All of which require clusters of densely populated settlements - city-states. The word "Politics" is derived from the Greek word for city-state, "Polis". Corporate, religious, academic and every other polity, especially those constrained by limited resources, contain dominance hierarchy and therefore politics. Politics is most often studied in relation to the administration of governments. The oldest form of government was tribal organization. Rule by elders was supplanted by monarchy, and a system of Feudalism as an arrangement where a single family dominated the political affairs of a community. Monarchies have existed in one form or another for the past 5000 years of human history.

Definitions

- Power is the ability to impose one's will on another. It implies a capacity for force, i.e violence.
- Authority is the power to enforce laws, to exact obedience, to command, to determine, or to judge.
- Legitimacy is an attribute of government gained through the acquisition and application of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles.
- A government is the body that has the authority to make and enforce rules or laws.

Political power

Samuel Gompers’ often paraphrased maxim,"Reward your friends and punish your enemies," hints at two of the five types of power recognized by social psychologists: incentive power (the power to reward) and coercive power (the power to punish). Arguably the other three grow out of these two. Legitimate power, the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by fine or penalty. Referent power is bestowed upon individuals by virtue of accomplishment or attitude. Fulfillment of the desire to feel similar to a celebrity or a hero is the reward for obedience. Expert power springs from education or experience. Following the lead of an experienced coach is often rewarded with success. Expert power is conditional to the circumstances. A brain surgeon is no help when your pipes are leaking.

Authority and legitimacy

Max Weber identified three sources of legitimacy for authority known as (tripartite classification of authority). He proposed three reasons why people followed the orders of those who gave them:

Traditional

Traditional authorities receive loyalty because they continue and support the preservation of existing values, the status quo. Traditional authority has the longest history. Patriarchal (and more rarely Matriarchal) societies gave rise to hereditary monarchies where authority was given to descendants of previous leaders. Followers submit to this authority because "we've always done it that way." Examples of traditional authoritarians include kings and queens.

Charismatic

Charismatic authority grows out of the personal charm or the strength of an individual personality (see cult of personality for the most extreme version). Charismatic regimes are often short lived, seldom outliving the charismatic figure that leads them. Examples include Hitler, Napoleon, and Mao.

Legal-rational

Legal-Rational authorities receive their ability to compel behavior by virtue of the office that they hold. It is the authority that demands obedience to the office rather than the office holder. Modern democracies are examples of legal-rational regimes.

References

GOMPERS,SAMUEL; “Men of Labor! Be Up and Doing,” editorial, American Federationist, May 1906, p. 319

Ideology

An ideology is a collection of ideas. The word ideology was coined by Count Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century to define a "science of ideas." An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (for the Marxist definition of ideology - see Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction).

Ideology in everyday society

Every society has an ideology that forms the basis of the "public opinion" or common sense, a basis that usually remains invisible to most people within the society. This dominant ideology appears as "neutral", while all others that differ from the norm are often seen as radical, no matter what the actual vision may be. The philosopher Michel Foucault wrote about this concept of apparent ideological neutrality. Organisations that strive for power influence the ideology of a society to become what they want it to be. Political organisations (governments included) and other groups (e.g. lobbyists) try to influence people by broadcasting their opinions, which is the reason why so often many people in a society seem to "think alike". When most people in a society think alike about certain matters, or even forget that there are alternatives to the current state of affairs, we arrive at the concept of Hegemony, about which the philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote. The much smaller scale concept of groupthink also owes something to his work. Modern linguists study the mechanism of conceptual metaphor, by which this 'thinking alike' is thought to be transmitted. There are many different kinds of ideology: political, social, epistemological, ethical, and so on. Meta-ideology is the study of the structure, form, and manifestation of ideologies. Meta-ideology posits that ideology is a system of ideas and thoughts bound by an internal logic and a few basic assumptions about reality that have no real factual basis, but are arbitrary choices that serve as the seed around which ideologies grow. According to this train of thought, ideologies are neither right nor wrong, but only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorizing the world.

Political ideologies

In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explain how society should work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. It can be a construct of political thought, often defining political parties and their policy. Studies of the concept of ideology itself (rather than specific ideologies) have been carried out under the name of systematic ideology. Political ideologies regard policies of many different aspects of a society, the most central of which are: economy, education, criminal law, management of criminals, minors, animals, environment, immigration, eugenics, race, use of the military, forced nationalism, forced religion

List of political ideologies

There are many proposed methods for the classification of political ideologies. See the political spectrum article for a more in-depth discussion of these different methods (each of whom generates a specific political spectrum). The following list attempts to divide ideologies into a number of groups; each group contains ideologies that have a certain theme or idea in common. Note that one ideology can belong to several groups, and there is sometimes considerable overlap between related ideologies.

Epistemological ideologies

Even when the challenging of existing beliefs is encouraged, as in science, the dominant paradigm or mindset can prevent certain challenges, theories or experiments from being advanced. The philosophy of science mostly concerns itself with reducing the impact of these prior ideologies so that science can proceed with its primary task, which is (according to science) to create knowledge. There are critics who view science as an ideology in itself, or being an effective ideology, called scientism. Some scientists respond that, while the scientific method is itself an ideology, as it is a collection of ideas, there is nothing particularly wrong or bad about it. Other critics point out that while science itself is not a misleading ideology, there are some fields of study within science that are misleading. Two examples discussed here are in the fields of ecology and economics. A special case of science adopted as ideology is that of ecology, which studies the relationships between living things on Earth. Perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson believed that human perception of ecological relationships was the basis of self-awareness and cognition itself. Linguist George Lakoff has proposed a cognitive science of mathematics wherein even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception - which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology. Deep ecology and the modern ecology movement (and, to a lesser degree, Green parties) appear to have adopted ecological sciences as a positive ideology. Some accuse ecological economics of likewise turning scientific theory into political economy, although theses in that science can often be tested. The modern practice of green economics fuses both approaches and seems to be part science, part ideology. This is far from the only theory of economics to be raised to ideology status - some notable economically-based ideologies include mercantilism, social darwinism, communism, laissez-faire economics, and "free trade". There are also current theories of safe trade and fair trade which can be seen as ideologies.

History of the concept of ideology

Perhaps the most accessible source for the original meaning of "ideology" is Hippolyte Taine's work on the Ancien Regime (first volume of "Origins of Contemporary France"). He describes ideology as rather like teaching philosophy by the Socratic method, but without extending the vocabulary beyond what the general reader already possessed, and without the examples from observation which practical science would require. Taine identifies it not just with Destutt de Tracy, but with his milieu, and includes Condillac as one of its precursors. The word "ideology" was coined long before the Russians coined "intelligentsia", or before the adjective "intellectual" referred to a sort of person (a substantive). Thus these words were not around when the hard-headed, driven Napoleon Bonaparte took the word "ideologues" to ridicule his intellectual opponents.

Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction

Karl Marx proposed a base/superstructure model of society. The base refers to the means of production of society. The superstructure is formed on top of the base, and comprises that society's ideology, as well as its legal system, political system, and religions. For Marx, the base determines the superstructure. Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, including its ideology, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests. Critics of the Marxist approach feel that it attributes too much importance to economic factors in influencing society. The ideologies of the dominant class of a society are proposed to all members of that society in order to make the ruling class' interests appear to be the interests of all. György Lukács describes this as a projection of the class consciousness of the ruling class, while Antonio Gramsci advances the theory of cultural hegemony to explain why people in the working-class can have a false conception of their own interests. Louis Althusser proposed that ideology makes use of a special type of discourse: the lacunar discourse. A number of propositions, which are never untrue, suggest a number of other propositions, which are. In this way, the essence of the lacunar discourse is what is not told (but is suggested). For example, the statement 'All are equal before the law', which is a theory behind current legal systems, suggests that all people may be of equal worth or have equal 'opportunities'. This is not true, because the concept of private property over the means of production results in some people being able to own more (much more) than others, and their property brings power and influence (the rich can afford better lawyers, among other things, and this puts in question the principle of equality before the law). The dominant forms of ideology in capitalism are (in chronological order): #classical liberalism #social democracy #neo-liberalism and they correspond to the stages of development of capitalism: #extensive stage #intensive stage #contemporary capitalism (or late capitalism, or current crisis) Other dominant forms of capitalist ideology such as social darwinism cannot be related to a specific phase. The Marxist view of ideology as an instrument of social reproduction has been an important touchstone for the sociology of knowledge and theorists such as Karl Mannheim, Daniel Bell and Jürgen Habermas amongst many others.

Feminism as critique of ideology

Naturalizing socially constructed patterns of behavior has always been an important mechanism in the production and reproduction of ideologies. Feminist theorists have paid close attention to these mechanisms. Adrienne Rich e.g. has shown how to understand motherhood as a social institution. ko:이데올로기

External Links

- [http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/ The Strength of an Idea]

Parliamentary system

A parliamentary system, or parliamentarism, is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to criticism from some that they lack checks and balances found in a presidential republic. Parliamentarism is praised, relative to presidentialism, for its flexibility and responsiveness to the public. It is faulted for its tendency to sometimes lead to unstable governments, as in the German Weimar Republic and the French Fourth Republic. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an appointed figurehead with only minor or ceremonial powers. However, some parliamentary systems also have an elected president with many reserve powers as the head of state, providing some balance to these systems. The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary countries that use first past the post voting usually have governments composed of one party. The United Kingdom, for instance, has had only one coalition government since World War II. However, parliamentary systems of continental Europe do use proportional representation, so, outside the British Commonwealth, it can be said that PR voting systems and parliamentarism go together. Parliamentarism may also be heeded for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as part of a parliamentary system. Oslo

History

Main Article: History of Parliamentarism The modern parliamentary system has its roots in the Roman Republic's senate, which was essentially a ruling council made up of the elite of society. Even after the Republic became the Roman Empire, the senate still had immense influence and power. However, as time went on, the autocratic nature of later emperors eventually reduced the senate's prestige and power, and ushered in centuries of relative autocratic rule by monarchs. Under feudalism in the Middle Ages, all members of a kingdom were technically under the protection of a ruling monarch (and the Church), who gave land to nobles in exchange for support. However, nobles would occasionally challenge the ruling monarch (as would the Church). Under the customs of Feudalism, groups of nobles would meet to decide on whether they would support the monarch on important issues. These groups sometimes clashed with the autocratic nature of some monarchs. The most important clash, in the evolution of the nation state and Constitutional rule of law, came with Magna Carta of 1215—it was the first true challenge to the unrestrained powers of a king, attempting to constitutionally limit King John after he commited a series of debacles. The kingdom of England had become too big, the groups of nobles believed, for any one man as crazy as John to make decisions. The statements made by Magna Carta were a direct challenge to the Divine Right of Kings, a philosophy held by convention at the time, and led to many civil wars, perhaps the most famous of which was the English Civil War. Parliaments throughout Europe systematically replaced the powers of the monarch, often holding complete financial control of the state. In many cases the monarchs finally signed over all actual power, and became ceremonial figureheads. In others, the entire monarchy fell, and were replaced by the parliaments. As time went on, most states began to give suffrage to decide the makeup of the parliament, often with two houses. One was hereditary and made up of nobles, and the other made up of elected officials, for example the House of Lords and House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Initially, the house of the elite, or upper house, held most of the power, but most parliaments now invest almost complete power in the elected or lower house. Some parliaments have abolished the upper house completely, while others have altered them to be elected as well. The parliamentary system has come full circle from its ancient beginnings.

The features of a parliamentary system

The executive is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government, but parliamentarism has also been practised with privy councils. The prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet typically have their background in the parliament and may remain members thereof while serving in cabinet. The leader of the leading party, or group of parties, in the parliament is often appointed as the prime minister. In many countries, the cabinet, or single members thereof, can be removed by the parliament through a vote of no confidence. In addition, the executive can often dissolve the parliament and call extra-ordinary elections. Under the parliamentary system the roles of head of state and head of government are more or less separated. In most parliamentary systems, the head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, often a monarch or president, retaining duties that aren't politically divisive, such as appointments of civil service. In many parliamentary systems, the head of state may have reserve powers which are usable in a crisis. In most cases however, such powers are (either by convention or by constitutional rule) only exercised upon the advice and approval of the head of government. Because the executive is directly related to the legislature, some argue the executive is actually more accountable than many fixed term presidential systems, as the executive, being linked to the legislative, can face an early election in the face of the aforementioned 'vote of confidence'. In addition, because the executive is beholden to the legislature, he or she faces more direct questioning by opposition politicians than an executive would in a presidential system. It can also be argued that it's relatively easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system since the executive and the legislature are always controlled by the same party and since the executive has a greater ability to "snap the whip" and force wavering party members into alignment. Within presidential systems, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive is of a different party from those leading the legislature, then stalemate can occur. Parliamentary systems vary as to the degree to which they have a formal written constitution and the degree to which that constitution describes the day to day working of the government. Also, depending upon the voting system, they vary as to the number of parties within the system and the dynamics between the parties. Relations between the central government and local governments vary in parliamentary systems; they may be federal or unitary states.

Advantages of a parliamentary system

It could be argued that a parliamentary system is more accountable than a presidential system, since power is not divided. In a parliamentary system, it is easier for voters to tell who is responsible for inaction than in a presidential system. Also, in a parliamentary system the chief executive (or prime minister) is often questioned by the legislature. Such a procedure would ensure that the chief executive is held to account and would act as a check on his power. Some believe that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and is often comprised of members of the legislature. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system are comprised of members from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress for much of his tenure as President. Presidents often face problems from their own parties as Jimmy Carter did. Parliamentarianism also has attractive features for nations that are ethnically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president, in a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to something that was more like a classical parliamentary system. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired. Switzerland is not a parliamentary system, but it does have a plural executive. In the English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural. There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully transitioned to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully transitioned to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the thirty countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, “All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly.”

Criticisms of parliamentarianism

A main criticism of many parlimentary systems is that the head of government cannot be directly voted on. Often, an electorate will be surprised just by who is elevated to the premiership, as Indians were surprised in 2004 when Manmohan Singh was named prime minister and not Sonia Gandhi. In a presidential system, the president is directly chosen by the people, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, but in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the party leadership. Another major criticism comes from the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Because there is a lack of obvious separation of power, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. In the United Kingdom, the prime minister is traditionally thought of as the "first among equals" of the cabinet. It has been alleged in The Economist and by former MP Graham Allen that the prime minister's power has grown so much in recent years that he or she is now dominant over the government and that collegiality is no more. Rather than being "first among equals," the modern British prime minister is "like the moon among the stars," as The Economist once put it. "Instead of a healthy balance we have an executive [the prime minister] who stands like an 800 lb. gorilla alongside a wizened legislature and judiciary." (Allen, 12) Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, no confidence votes, and threats of no confidence votes, make or have made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates. Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. In other systems, such as the Dutch, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date, but not much.

Parliamentarism and Party Formation

Traditionally, parties in parliamentary systems have had much tighter ideological cohesiveness than parties in presidential systems. It would be impossible for a parliamentary system to have a party like the United States Democratic Party, which was a directionless coalition of Southern, conservative, Protestants and urban, liberal, white ethnics until the 1980s. A parliamentary system's party must support a government, if a party in a parliamentary system had wildly divergent wings, its goal of government support would be highly problematic. In parliaments, legislators do not have the freedom to vote against their party leadership. An individual legislator in a parliamentary system is recognized to be a creature of his party leadership, not an independent spokesman for a district. A parliamentarian can criticize his party’s leadership, but he must accept responsibility for the leadership’s choice and vote for it. If a parliamentarian were to vote against his leadership he would be expelled from the party and not slated in the next election. Since parties in parliamentary systems cannot accommodate dissent in the same way parties in presidential systems can, there is an incentive to channel dissent through new parties, not through intra-party conflict. Thus, parliamentary systems – even ones that vote by first-past-the-post, will see a proliferation of alternative parties.

Countries with a parliamentary system of government

Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Malaysia, Malta , Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Sweden, United Kingdom, Slovakia.

Presidential system

A presidential system, or a congressional system, is a system of government of a republic where the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative. The defining characteristic of a presidential government is how the executive is elected, but nearly all presidential systems share the following features:
- The president is both head of state and head of government.
- The president has no formal relationship with the legislature. He is not a voting member, nor can he introduce bills.
- The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times, and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other such parliamentary procedures.
- The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. The term presidential system is often used in contrast to cabinet government, which is usually a feature of parliamentarism. There also exists a kind of intermediate, the semi-presidential system. Countries with congressional and presidential systems include the United States, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, South Korea, and most countries in South America. The widespread use of presidentialism in the Americas has caused political scientists to dub the Americas as "the continent of presidentialism".

Types of presidents

Many countries with a president as head of state do not operate under what is described as a presidential system. Many parliamentary nations, Germany and Italy, for instance, have an office of president, but these presidents are merely figurehead heads of state, like constitutional monarchs, and not active, executive heads of government. In a full-fledged presidential system, a president would be chosen by the people and be the center of the executive branch. Presidential governments make no distinction between the positions of Head of state and Head of government, both of which are held by the president. Most parliamentary governments have a symbolic head of state in the form of a president or monarch. That person is responsible for the formalities of state functions as the figurehead while the constitutional prerogatives as head of government are generally exercised by the Prime Minister. Such figurehead presidents tend to be elected in a much less direct manner than active, presidential system presidents, for example by a vote of the legislature. A few nations, such as Ireland, do have a popularly elected ceremonial president. There are also a few countries - South Africa being an example - which have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are both heads of state and heads of government. These executives are titled "president," yet are constitutionally identical to prime ministers. Incidentally, the method of legislative vote for president was a plank in Madison's Virginia Plan and was seriously considered by the Framers of the American Constitution. Some political scientists consider the conflation of head of state and head of government duties to be a problem of presidentialism because criticism of the president as head of state is criticism of the state itself. Presidents in presidential systems are always active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as South Korea or the Republic of China (or Taiwan), there is an office of the prime minister or premier, but unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.

Perceived advantages of presidential systems

Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:
- Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is generally elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly.
- Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters of the system claim that this arrangement allows each structure to supervise the other, preventing abuses.
- Speed and decisiveness — some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly, and that this is a good thing. Others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down, and that this is a good thing.
- Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.

Direct mandate

A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected. Through making more than one electoral choice voters in a presidential system can more accurately indicate their policy preferences. Some political scientists interpret the late Cold War to elect a Democratic Congress and a Republican president as the choice for a Republican foreign policy and a Democratic domestic policy. It is also claimed that the direct mandate of a president makes him or her more accountable. The reasoning behind this argument is that a prime minister is "shielded" from public opinion by the apparatus of state, being several steps removed.

Separation of powers

The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinise the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP in the UK, said "don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it." (ibid). Critics respond that if a presidential system's legislature is controlled by the president's party, the same situation exists. Despite the existence of the no confidence vote, in practice, it is extremely difficult to stop a prime minister or cabinet that has made its decision. To vote down the cabinet's legislation is to bring down a government and have new elections, a step few backbenchers are willing to take. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, like Britain, only occurs a few times in a century. In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee "Parliament has really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Schlesinger 1982)

Speed and decisiveness

Some supporters of presidential systems claim that presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained. In Why England Slept, future president John F. Kennedy said that Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the commons. Other supporters of presidential systems sometimes argue in the exact opposite direction, however, saying that presidential systems can slow decision-making to beneficial ends. Divided government, where the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different parties, is said to restrain the excesses of both parties, and guarantee bipartisan input into legislation. In the United States, Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995: :There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing. Gridlock is the natural gift the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country would not be subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And the competition - whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house - is important to those checks and balances and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank heaven we do not have a government that nationalizes one year and privatizes next year, and so on ad infinitum. (Checks and Balances, 8) Despite a president's weakness in Congress, checks and balances did not interfere with the legislative programs of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, or Lyndon Johnson.

Stability

Although votes of no confidence tend to be rare in some parliamentary systems, they are common in a few others. Italy, Israel and the French Fourth Republic all have or had problems with governmental stability. When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments depend on coalitions, as they do with nations that vote by proportional representation, extremist parties can theoretically use the threat of leaving the coalition to blackmail the centrist parties who are leading. Many people consider presidential systems to be superior in surviving emergencies. A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships. France during the Algerian controversy switched to a semi-presidential system, Sri Lanka did likewise during its civil war, and Israel experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992. In at least the first two cases, the results are widely considered to have been positive. In the Israeli case, however, direct election of the prime minister produced an unanticipated further proliferation of small parties, and the traditional parliamentary mode of selection was restored. The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is likewise often held as a valuable "check" on the powers of the executive. While parliamentary systems often allow the prime minister to call elections whenever he sees fit, or orchestrate his own vote of no confidence to trigger one when he cannot get a legislative item passed, the presidential model is said to discourage this sort of opportunism, and instead force the executive to operate within the confines of a term he cannot alter to suit his own needs.

Perceived disadvantages of presidential systems

Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:
- Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that the presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted, except the United States.
- Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
- Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

Tendency towards authoritarianism

Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize — unlike a prime minister, who may have to form a coalition, a president's party can rule without any allies for the duration of one or possibly consecutive terms, a worrisome situation for many interest groups. Juan Linz argues that :The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate. . . losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization. Constitutions that only require plurality support are said to be especially undesirable, as significant power can be vested in a person who does not enjoy support from a majority of the population. Some political scientists go further, and argue that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which it has been implemented. Seymour Martin Lipset and others are careful to point out that this has taken place in political cultures unconducive to democracy, and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the presidential system may have played a role in some situations. In a presidential system, the legislature and the president have equally valid mandates from the public. There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government. When president and legislature are at loggerheads and government is not working effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional maneuvres to break the deadlock. Ecuador is presented as a case study of democratic failures over the past quarter-century. Presidents have ignored the legislature or bypassed it altogether. One president had the National Assembly teargassed, while another was kidnapped by paratroopers until he agreed to certain congressional demands. From 1979 through 1988, Ecuador staggered through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations that created a near permanent crisis atmosphere in the polity. In 1984, President León Febres-Cordero tried to physically bar new Congressionally-appointed supreme court appointees from taking their seats. Colombia has similarly exhibited the problems said to be inherent in presidentialism in the last twenty years. Presidents have also gone around Congress to legislate and simply to govern. In Brazil, presidents have accomplished their objectives by creating executive agencies over which Congress had no say (Checks and Balances, pp 34-35).

Separation of powers

Presidential systems are said by critics not to offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or Congress to escape blame by blaming the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon said "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington." (Checks and Balances, 10). In Congressional Government, Woodrow Wilson asked, :. . . how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? . . . Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government. . . . It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The `literary theory' of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our constititution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves . . . [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible.(Congressional Government, 186-7) Consider the example of the increase in the federal debt that occurred during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Arguably, the deficits were the product of a bargain between President Reagan and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill: O'Neill agreed not to oppose Reagan's tax cuts if Reagan would sign the Democrats' budget. Each side could claim to be displeased with the debt, plausibly blame the other side for the deficit, and still tout their own success.

Impediments to leadership change

Another alleged problem of presidentialism is that it is often difficult to remove a president from office early. Even if a president is "proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured till the moment comes for a new election." (Balfour, intro to the English Constitution). Consider John Tyler, who only became president because William Henry Harrison had died after thirty days. Tyler refused to sign Whig legislation, was loathed by his nominal party, but remained firmly in control of the executive branch. Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende. Presumably, in a parliamentary system, the unpopular leader could have been removed by a vote of no confidence, a device which is a "pressure release valve" for political tension. In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot criticized presidentialism because it does not allow a transfer in power in the event of an emergency. :Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency the people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion. The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis are not required - are impediments- in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday politics than a Chatham- a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the world we want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman - to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm. :But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind. The American government calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded - you have a president chosen for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: . . there is no elastic element. . . you have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it . . . (The English Constitution, the Cabinet.) Years later, Bagehot's observation came to life during and after World War II, when Neville Chamberlain was replaced with Winston Churchill and then Churchill was in turn replaced by Clement Atlee. Finally, many have criticized presidential systems for their alleged slowness in responding to their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action extremely difficult. Walter Bagehot said of the American system "the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others [and not itself] will suffer the effects." (ibid.)

Differences from a cabinet system

A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a cabinet system:
- In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in parliamentarism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", a "diet", a "chamber").
- As with the President's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
- In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as a checks and balances on each other's powers.
- Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.
- Presidential systems have weaker party discipline than parliamentary systems. Backbenchers in a parliamentary system cannot normally vote against their leadership. In a presidential system voting against the president or the Congressional leadership is common and accepted. :In contrast to that obtained in a parliamentary system, legislators can defect without either risking their own seats or affecting the president's ability to remain in office. (Arturo Valenzuela, 2004) Presidential systems also have less ideological parties than parliamentary systems. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber - Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members - Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman. This pattern prevails in Latin American presidential democracies and the Philippines as well.

The reality

In reality, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to choose a government answerable to the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinise his or her appointments to high governmental office, with the right, on some occasions, to block an appointment. In the United States, many appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, though answerable to parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary 'whip' (an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party) to control and dominate parliament, reducing its ability to control the government. In the late nineteenth century, it was speculated that the United States Speaker of the House of Representatives would evolve into a quasi-prime minister, with the US system evolving into a form of parliamentarianism. However this did not happen. More recently, it has been suggested that the office of White House Chief of Staff, the President's chief aide, has become a de facto United States prime minister of sorts, with his dominance or weakness in the US governmental system depending on whether there is a "hands off" or "hands on" president. (Ronald Reagan was the former, Bill Clinton the latter). Reagan's Chiefs of Staff in many ways ran the day to day affairs of government, with the President standing back from intervention. Some countries, such as France have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of semi-presidential system.

Democracies with a presidential system of government

United States of America, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, & Afghanistan, most states in the Americas. Note: Many legislators, including the President in the Philippines want a constitutional amendment to switch from a presidential to parliamentary form of government.

United Nations reform and presidentialism

Some have called for presidentialism in regard to electing a UN Secretary-General. This would result from an election of the Secretary-General by the global population, instead of by the governments of the member states.

External links

- http://www.idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/ebook_chapter4_3.html
- http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/pres.htm
- http://www.cebem.com/centdocum/documentos/d-parlamen.htm
- [http://www.civilocracy.org Civilocracy] — Merits of an Executive Council and democracy via voluntary sortition.

References

- Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution. (multiple printings)
- Lijphart, Arend, Ed, Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings in Politics and Government), Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government contains a number of articles which are directly quoted in this wikipedia article.
- Leave the Constitution Alone, Arthur M. Schlesinger.
- The Centrality of Political Culture, Seymour Martin Lipset.
- Presidentialism: A Problematic Regime Type, Fred W. Riggs.
- Linz, Juan, and Arturo Valenzuela, The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
- Shugart, Matthew Søberg and John M. Carey. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
- Manuel, Paul Christopher and Anne Marie Cammisa,Checks & Balances: How a Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics, Westview Press, 1998. :(The above book is intended for students who are just beginning to learn about comparative government.)
- Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government, (multiple printings). Category:Political systems Category:Systems Category :Forms of government ja:大統領制

Proportional representation

Proportional representation (PR) is an election system which ensures a proportionally representative result of a democratic election, x% of votes should be represented by x% in the democratic institutions, parliament or congress. In practice, this is often only possible in various multi-winner electoral systems which try to ensure that the proportional support gained by different groups is accurately reflected in the election result. Proportional representation is also used to describe this (intended) effect. In practice this usually involves ensuring that political parties in parliament or legislative assemblies receive a number of seats (approximately) proportional to the percentage of vote they received. This is known as party-list proportional representation. Another kind of electoral system that strives to achieve proportional representation, but which does not rely on the existence of political parties is the single transferable vote (STV). Some electoral systems, such as the single non-transferable vote and cumulative voting are sometimes categorized as "semi-proportional".

Majoritarian systems

Electoral systems that do not result in proportional representation are known as majoritarian systems. These include first-past-the-post (plurality), runoff voting (majority), approval voting, the alternative vote and the bloc vote. Here, parties can receive seat numbers that bear no relationship to the national percentages they received in parliament. This is called disproportionality, and can be measured with the Gallagher Index.

Disproportionality

The constituency magnitude of a system (i.e. the number of seats in a constituency) plays a vital role in determining how proportional an electoral system can be. When using proportional systems, the greater the number of seats in a constituency, the more proportional it can be. Any system with single-member constituency is by necessity majoritarian - at that level. However constituency borders may be gerrymandered to allow for simulation of proportionality at a higher level. This may be achieved by creating "majority-minority" constituencies - constituencies in which the majority is formed by a group of voters that are in the minority at a higher level. However, multiple-member districts do not ensure that an electoral system will be proportional. The bloc vote can result in "super-majoritarian" results in which, in addition to the normal disproportionality of single-member majoritarian systems, geographical variations that could create majority-minority districts become subsumed into the larger districts. There is also another cause of disproportionality within some proportional systems. This is when the party does not provide a list with enough people on it to fill all the seats won by a political party. For instance if a party wins 20 seats but only has 15 people on its list then it loses 5 seats. This is termed an underhang. Some proportional systems deliberately limit the amount of proportionality by requiring a party list to achieve the election threshold - a certain minimum percentage of votes to receive any seats. Typically, this lower limit will be set at between three and six percent of the total number of votes cast. Parties who do not reach that margin will not be represented in parliament, making majorities, coalitions and thus governments easier to achieve. Proponents of election thresholds argue that they discourage disproportionate power for what they may see as extremist parties - that are likely to be small. Opponents of thresholds argue that they cause so-called "proportional" systems to unfairly distribute the representation of the supporters of minor parties to the major parties, thus giving the parties which cross the threshold disproportionally high percentages of the seats and creating the possibility that a party or group of parties will assume control of the legislature without gaining a majority of votes. There are several ways of measuring proportionality, the most common being the Gallagher Index.

History

The PR system was devised in the late 19th century, and was first used in Belgium in the 1900 parliamentary elections. PR was implemented in many European countries during or after World War I (e.g. the German Weimar Republic). Proportional representation is a much more common system of voting than first-past-the-post. In general, first-past-the-post is only used in former British colonies (and in the Westminster Elections in the UK), but a form of proportional representation known as the mixed member system is now being used in the United Kingdom to elect the members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly. Although once an unknown system, proportional representation is now gaining popularity in Canada with five provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick currently debating whether to abolish the first past the post system, and at the federal level, a Parliamentary Committee is now exploring the issue. Political analysts point out the fact that the current attitude and sequence of events is very similar to what happened in New Zealand when New Zealand opted for Mixed Member Proportional Representation and the analysts conclude Canada is heading down the same route. All of the members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, including those elected from constituencies in Britain, are elected by proportional representation. Proportional representation is also used in many European countries. Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office. In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican party machine (the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957). Proportional representation is still used in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some electoral systems incorporate additional features to ensure absolutely accurate or more comprehensive representation, based on gender or minority status (like ethnicity). Note that features such as this are not strictly part of proportional representation; depending on what kind of PR is used, people tend to be already represented proportionally according to these standards without such additional rules. In Ireland, PR has resulted in a strange situation whereby a centre party with a large support base (Fianna Fáil) has 45% of the vote but the opposition parties are extremely fragmented with the only thing that unites them being their dislike of Fianna Fail, therefore people do want a strong alternative to Fianna Fail however they differ greatly on what form that should take, thus an extremely fragmented opposition vote. In his essay, Overcoming Practical Difficulties in Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly, Joseph E. Schwartzberg proposes the use of proportional representation in the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in order to prevent, for instance, lower castes of Indians from being excluded[http://www.uno-komitee.de/en/documents/unpa-reader-2003.pdf]: See Two-Party System: Advantages and Problems for a list of perceived advantages of proportional representation. Image:Proportionalrepresentationballot.jpg

Methods of proportional representation

There are different methods of PR, which achieve either a greater degree of proportionality or a greater degree of determinate outcome.

Party list system in a multi-member constituency

The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In a closed list, voters vote for a list, not a candidate. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes, using the ranking order on its list. In an open list, voters indicate their order of preference within the list.
- This system is used in Israel (where the whole country is one closed list constituency), the Netherlands (open list) and for elections to the European Parliament in the United Kingdom (closed list) as well as in Finland using multi-member districts and open lists.

Additional-member system, mixed-member system

Main articles: Additional Member System (Mixed Member Proportional); Parallel voting or Supplementary Member; Alternative Vote and Alternative vote top-up (Alternative Vote Plus) The country is divided into one-member constituencies, but a further bloc of seats are reserved for proportionality - the additional members bloc. In some versions voters have two ballot papers: the first is a "first past the post" ballot for their local constituency. The second is a Party List ballot as above. The additional member seats are allocated in proportion to the number of party list votes. In other versions there is only the "first past the post" ballot electing constituency representatives; additional member seats allocated in proportion to the votes a party's candidates receive nationally. It is criticised on the grounds that a significant number of deputies are not directly answerable to constituents and are difficult to vote out of office.
- This system (or variations of it) is used in Germany, New Zealand, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Italy has changed between sub-systems.

Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency

Main article (with worked examples): Single Transferable Vote A constituency elects at least three, rarely more than five representatives. (Consequently the constituency is three to five times larger than a single member constituency in "first past the post".) The major parties may offer as many candidates as there are seats, the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, giving their preferred ranking for some or even all the candidates. Consequently, it is the voters, rather than the party, who have final say over which candidates succeed - it is not a good system for party apparatchiks. A successful candidate must achieve a quota of one-fourth plus one of the preferences in a three-member constituency, one-fifth plus one in a four-member, and so on. Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus (votes in excess of the quota) is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected. All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents. Some political scientists argue that STV is more properly classified as 'semi-proportional' as there is no assurance of a proportional result at a nationwide level.
- This system is used in Australia, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Malta.

Shared-candidate democracy (also multi-vote district, or MVD)

In this system, multiple candidates from each district are elected, and they each cast as many votes as they received in the election in the law-making body. There would usually be a limit to how many candidites can be elected, usually by a run-off, instant run-off, or threshold. Benefits of this system include simplicity (all the voters vote, and each candidate just divides his total votes by the total number of voters to decide his share of the representation), direct proportionality (representatives get exactly the proportion of power that the voters give them), resistance to gerrymandering (political parties can't gain a significant advantage by moving voting district borders), and minority representation (minority groups get a voice; but the majority still rules). It also remains neutral on the issue of party politics; independent candidates are not favoured nor punished. Voters may perhaps feel less disenfranchised with this system: even minority parties with only 10% popular support still have a chance to speak and vote. Potential drawbacks include added complexity for computing representative vote results, and variability in the number of representatives that may be in power after any given election. This is not as much of an issue in the IRV system, as only four or so people from each district would be allowed, but it does suffer from some of the drawbacks of IRV itself, just to a much lesser extent. There is also the problem that it would add complexity to the legislature. Many people point out, though, that other systems are perhaps more complex, that this greater amount of complexity is a small price to pay for every vote to count, and that it would be easy to simply use a computerized system, so that it would at least make it easy to count up the votes. One variant of this system allows for fractional voting. If a constituent likes Candidate A 30%, Candidate B 30%, and Candidate C 40%, he can give each candidate the appropriate fraction of his vote. In this way, the trust of the voter in his representatives can be more accurately portrayed.
- This system remains theoretical; no known nations use this method today.

External links

- [http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE10/P6.HTM Quantifying Representativity] Article by Philip Kestelman
- [http://www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html PR page] from old CVD web site.
- [http://www.fairvote.org/index.php?page=718 PR page] from new CVD web site.
- [http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems3.htm Electoral Reform Society]
- [http://www.prsa.org.au Proportional Representation Society of Australia]
- [http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/survey.htm#multiple Voting methods survey] Describes 19 multi-winner systems Category:Voting systems ja:比例代表制

Plurality electoral system

The plurality voting system, also known as first past the post, is a voting system used to elect a single winner in a given election. Plurality voting is also variously referred to as winner-take-all or relative majority voting, however these terms can also refer to elections using bloc voting to elect multiple winners in a particular constituency. In political science, the use of plurality voting alongside multiple, single-winner constituencies to elect a multimember body is often referred to as single-member district plurality or SMDP. Plurality voting is perhaps the simplest of all voting systems, where each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the winner is whichever candidate represents a

Political parties

Nonpartisan, Single-party, two-party, and multi-party governments

Parties and directions

Colors and emblems for parties

International organizations of political parties

See also

External links

Politics

A natural state

Early history

Definitions

Political power

Authority and legitimacy

Traditional

Charismatic

Legal-rational

References

See also

Ideology

Ideology in everyday society

Political ideologies

List of political ideologies

Ideologies emphasizing ethnicity or nationality

Ideologies emphasizing class struggle

Ideologies emphasizing the individual

Ideologies and social-systems emphasizing the collectivity

Ideologies emphasizing territory

Ideologies based on religion

Conservatism

Other ideologies

Epistemological ideologies

History of the concept of ideology

Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction

Feminism as critique of ideology

External Links

Parliamentary system

History

The features of a parliamentary system

Advantages of a parliamentary system

Criticisms of parliamentarianism

Parliamentarism and Party Formation

Countries with a parliamentary system of government

See also

Presidential system

Types of presidents

Perceived advantages of presidential systems

Direct mandate

Separation of powers

Speed and decisiveness

Stability

Perceived disadvantages of presidential systems

Tendency towards authoritarianism

Separation of powers

Impediments to leadership change

Differences from a cabinet system

The reality

Democracies with a presidential system of government

United Nations reform and presidentialism

See also

External links

References

Proportional representation

Majoritarian systems

Disproportionality

History

Methods of proportional representation

Party list system in a multi-member constituency

Additional-member system, mixed-member system

Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency

Shared-candidate democracy (also multi-vote district, or MVD)

Further reading

See also

External links

Plurality electoral system